LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST 
115 
edgment to him, maintaining at the same time the change of name. 
This change was unfortunate, because Loew’s pretended Anarete 
proved, much later, not to be the Anarete of Haliday at all! Mr. J. 
J. Ivieffer, in 1898, discovered a Cecidomyid in which he recognized 
Anarete Loew, but did not succeed in identifying it with Anarete 
Halid.; he applied to me (January 24,1898) for an explanation, and 
I referred him to my statement in the Berl. Ent. Zeit ., 1892, p. 451 
(130, 1892), where I had proved that Schinerwas right in referring 
Anarete Halid, to the Scatopsina. Whereupon Ivieffer proposed 
the name Pseudanarete (in litteris) for the genus of Loew. I am 
not aware that he has published it since. 
In consequence of Loew’s erroneous determination of Haliday’s 
Anarete , the following passage in “ Dipterologische Beitrage,” Yol. 
IV, p. 19, 1850, requires a correction : “ Attention should be called 
to the hitherto entirely overlooked relationship of the Cecidomyiae 
with the genus Seatopse ; the venation of Lestremia and Anarete is 
like that of Seatopse, etc.” This Anarete Loew is the Cecidomyid 
Pseudanarete Ivieffer (in litteris'). If Loew had had the true Anarete 
Halid., he would have been right in connecting it with Seatopse. 
As it is, the comparison which he draws between Cecidomyia and 
Seatopse has no foundation. Seatopse being a close relative of 
Bibio, as Loew himself had recognized in his paper in the Linnaea, 
Yol. I, p. 324 (1846), it would follow from his conclusion that Bibio 
is a relative of Cecidomyia, which is a reductio ad absurdum. 
Still later, in 1858, Loew suggested other unexpected and fanci¬ 
ful ideas about the relationship of the Bibionidae. It was his fixed 
but erroneous notion that the structure of the antennae constitutes 
the only difference between the Nemoeera and Brachycera, and 
hence, as late as 1858, we find in his paper: “ Ueber einige neue 
Fliegengattungen” (Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1858), on p. 102, at the bottom, 
the following incongruous passage about the genus Rhachicerus 
Halid., and the Amber genera Chrysothemis and Electra Loew. 
“ These three genera have their natural position among the Xyluphagidae , 
which is indicated by the structure of their mouth, as far as it is known. 
But the circumstance that this arrangement tends somewhat to obliterate 
tbe line of separation between the two principal divisions of Diptera, was 
the only reason which induced me, in my paper on Amber, to admit Chryso - 
